‘Stitched up’ – that’s how one councillor feels about a controversial housing scheme in his ward.
Cllr Mark Williams (Con, Dodleston and Huntington) expressed scepticism over GMV Eight’s resubmitted application for 120 homes at the former Saighton Army Camp when speaking as a planning committee member.
The company originally included 5,000 sq m employment land and a primary school in its vision when granted planning permission on appeal for 375 homes.
Now it wants to replace those elements with the 120 homes arguing there “remains an absence of any demand for employment” and an alternative off-site location for a new primary school is preferred.
Cllr Williams, who called-in the plans for a committee decision, favoured a mixed-use scheme and was unconvinced the employment land had been genuinely marketed. He suggested the land could be sold to a builder at a massive premium if it had permission for housing.
He said: “If that’s the reason to make a 360 degree turn-around on a light industrial area to make, I’m guessing, a £12m profit, I think it’s disgraceful.”
Cllr Williams cited company after company whose efforts to pursue possible location at the site had been frustrated, including two firms who had since set up in Runcorn and Manchester Airport.
He said his authority had been ‘out manoeuvred and stitched up’.
Cllr Eleanor Johnson was ‘not happy’ about losing an on-site primary school to serve children from the Saighton Camp development which could total more than 900 homes when complete.
Cllr Adrian Walmsley said there was an immediate problem because the nearest primary school, Huntington, was ‘full to overflowing’.
A decision over the application was deferred by nine votes to two after councillors rejected three ‘reluctant’ attempts to back the scheme but struggled to find planning reasons for refusal.
Development planning manager Fiona Hore stressed the deadline for a decision had passed and members alone would have to defend their decision if the developer appealed because there were no planning grounds.
Councillors hope further discussions can lead to an understanding with the developers whose identical plan was rejected by a planning officer in June based on inadequate provisions for affordable housing, education and open space. That decision was appealed and will go before a planning inspector in February.
This time the planning department recommended approval because the developer had offered 25% affordable housing and a £455,000 lump sum towards accommodating children in the new development at local schools.
